- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Huh, sounds like the NSA's penchant for mining "meta-data" is being spread to other areas....
This is even further, it is flat out reading your private text messages.
On Thursday, a company representative told CNNMoney that Cellebrite supports the legislation. In a statement, Cellebrite marketing executive Jeremy Nazarian said the device could be designed to check phone logs -- a record of metadata that would show a text message was sent, but not the actual contents of that message
For all of these reasons, the NSA's bulk telephony metadata collection program is lawful. Accordingly, the Government's motion to dismiss the complaint is granted and the ACLU's mostion for a preliminary injunction is denied.
Might want to read the article a bit closer.
I don't support meta-data mining without a properly authorized search warrant. But unfortunately our country is moving in that direction. Hopefully this goes to court and it gets struck down. But I'm not holding out much hope that it will be. Especially with judges like this...
United States District Court Southern District of New York ~ UCLA v James R. Clapper
Not only no, but hell no. This is a constitutional challenge waiting to happen. We have a right to privacy.
Not for the most part, these days...
New York drivers might get mandatory 'textalyzer' phone scans
New York drivers might get mandatory 'textalyzer' phone scans - Apr. 14, 2016
Definitely a 4th and maybe even a 5th Amendment violation. It would never stand up in court. Any lawmaker that supports such a thing should never be re-elected to office, and in fact should be eliminated from running for office under the banner of either party - the parties control who can run under their banner.
The goal of the bill is to give police a device that plugs into a phone and scans logs to see if a driver was texting or calling during the crash. And if drivers refuse to hand over their phones, they would lose their driver's license, under the proposed bill -- just as suspected drunk drivers are required to submit to breathalyzers.
Curious what cases you'd rely on for that proposition, because I'm more or less completely certain that it is dead wrong.
As the article itself notes, states already have laws that place you in the position of voluntarily agreeing to submit to a breathalyzer test OR to face automatic license suspension. These laws have been upheld as perfectly constitutional because to the extent it is a search, it is a consent search.
As for the 5th Amd., the Supreme Court has even held that it does not violate the 5th amendment to admit evidence in court that you refused the test, because they don't see blowing into a breathalyzer (or the refusal to do so) as being on par with being forced to provide incriminating testimony against yourself. (Contrast Massachusetts, where in 1992, the SJC held in Opinion of the Justices that evidence that you refused a breathalyzer is not admissible under the state constitution because it is the equivalent of testimonial evidence that the driver knows or suspects he has consumed enough alcohol to have committed OUI).
This would be the same thing, but for plugging the phone into a device to provide physical evidence that you were violating the law. With a breathalyzer, it's the percentage of alcohol in your blood stream. With this, it's whether a text function was active at a particular time.
Not only no, but hell no. This is a constitutional challenge waiting to happen. We have a right to privacy.
Actually, no we do *not* have a right to privacy (sadly), although some of what we believe to be privacy is sometimes found under 'unreasonable search and seizure'.Not for the most part, these days...
Actually, no we do *not* have a right to privacy (sadly), although some of what we believe to be privacy is sometimes found under 'unreasonable search and seizure'.
But unless my undergrad Con Law professor was in error, the Constitution is silent on the issue.
Are you speaking of in the Justices' comments?The Roe court thinks we do. The right to privacy is inferred from other enumerated rights........
Are you speaking of in the Justices' comments?
Any links?
Actually, no we do *not* have a right to privacy (sadly), although some of what we believe to be privacy is sometimes found under 'unreasonable search and seizure'.
But unless my undergrad Con Law professor was in error, the Constitution is silent on the issue.
I would say accessing my texts, even metadata as unreasonable search. We are in the digital age, we need to re-define these rights.
Does the content need to be accessed?
And I DO believe in the slippery slope, so for an advocate to say, "We would never do that." is hollow to me.It is a slippery slope. I also wonder what happens if someone sent a message using speech to text.
What do you mean?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?